Mixed Reality Flight Sims Are Accelerating F-16 Pilot Training in Ukraine

TL;DR: neither Ukraine financially backed by Western countries nor Russia backed by China will lose due to running out of funding, as there are secondary global power interests that go far beyond the conflict itself; the money talk is strategic for a long term conflict resolution via negotiations, as a military solution is unlikely; traditional weapons like the F16 play a minor role, as much simpler and cheaper drones allow for asymmetric attacks, causing lots of damage with very limited risks and cost, so flight simulators will be mostly used for training much more needed drone pilots.

Things are a lot more complicated, and there is much more at stake than full territorial sovereignty of Ukraine.

The US alone spent USD 2310bn in Afghanistan as part of an abstract war on terror, based on the Taliban not willing to act against the (Saudi financed) terror group responsible for 9/11, operating from their grounds. With not a lot more to gain than PR points. This time there is an added huge US interest to send a strong signal to China that attacks on sovereign states won't be tolerated, regardless of historical borders, as a direct military confrontation over Taiwan could cost a hundred times of what the US and partners provided for Ukraine so far.

And after centuries of their countries regularly engaging in war with each, the EU states need to demonstrate their unshakable willingness to make significant sacrifices to stop military aggression in Europe from becoming a viable choice again. Continued support for the Ukraine that is on the European continent, but neither a member of the EU nor the NATO, makes clear that feared attacks on the former Soviet Baltic states bordering Russia like Estonia, now a member of both EU and NATO, would see a much stronger reaction. They also need to counterpoint their reaction to the Russian 2014 Crimea annexation, when financial reasons led to rather weak sanctions, which probably encouraged Russia to go after Ukraine.

So the chances that anyone will cut off Ukraine's financial support are basically zero, as there is much more at stake, even though nobody expects that this war can be won in a classical sense. It's more about positioning the conflict parties for some kind of peace negotiations that allows both to keep their face. Talk about reducing funding serves to appease voters and push both Ukraine and Russia towards, with China pushing that way from the other side too.

For strategic reasons Russia cannot fully give up Crimea, some of which go back to NATO massively overextending its 2011 mandate from the UN security council to protect civilians in Libya by separating the conflict parties. For the first (and so far last) time in history, permanent council members Russia and China didn't veto against an intervention in one of their partner countries, only for NATO to then topple the Gaddafi regime, leading to Russia and China again steer towards superior force to resolve conflicts instead of trusting in partnerships and negotiations. This only scratches the surface of what is involved, with Ukraine and the money spent not even the main issues.

Western countries on the other hand cannot let Russia's Crimea annexation be a success, so a partial territory exchange will be the most likely result. Russia might keep their Crimean Black sea naval bases, but Ukraine the rights to exploit the huge gas reserves there, with all Russian territory currently taken by Ukraine returned, Ukraine regions with large Russian populations like Donbas getting a more autonomous status, Ukraine joining the EU and Russia getting security guarantees from NATO. Or some other complicated compromise.

War is always stupid and an unfathomable waste of resources, but unfortunately there is no reliable way to stop people from doing extremely stupid things we then have to react to.There are indicators that Putin expected this to be a quick three day in-and-out excursion to Kiew to replace the government with one friendly to Russia, not trying to join the EU and providing a buffer zone to NATO, with a limited reaction from the West, and no long conflict or occupation. Pretty much everybody was surprised that this isn't what happened, and now everyone is stuck with a conflict they don't want, cannot win, but also mustn't lose.

A lot of what is happening, incl. sending F16 to Ukraine, is more about making clear to the other side that they realistically cannot win. Despite having destroyed most of Ukraine's planes, Russia never controlled the air space due to fear of their fighters getting shot down from the ground, so there will be no dog fights. They pulled back their powerful Black sea fleet after losing several very expensive ships to Ukrainian rockets and drones, which are the weapon of choice in this conflict.

So Czech F16 simulators using Finnish high end HMDs will have some impact, but drones that are much cheaper than planes and don't even need to come home, are controlled using remote flatscreen displays, satellite video connections and flight sticks by soldiers trained on video games that can go home daily once their shift is done. Training a drone pilot takes a fraction of the time and cost of training a fighter pilot, with basically zero risk for the pilots life other than accidentally tripping on the way to the toilet.

I'm sure that expensive high tech plays a big role in this conflict and the ways people try to find a workable exist. But it's less about USD 63mn F16 jets and simulators for saving time and some of the over USD 5mn it takes to train a US F16 pilot. It's much more about providing intelligence from satellite image analysis to point out where to effectively hit with rather cheap technology, to convince both sides that a solution by force is neither possible nor worth it, leading to more realistic concessions in peace talks.